This review complements an earlier review of this book, by Samuel McKee.

Book reviewed by Robert Brennan, April 2025
Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us About Evolution
by Michael Ruse
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2016; 328 pages
ISBN 9780190241025, first edition, hardcover
AUD$112

Before his death in late 2024, Michael Ruse was author or editor of some 50 books. He introduced countless people to the history and philosophy of science, to evolutionary biology and its history, and to many aspects of Darwinian science and its development. An atheist, Ruse engaged in scholarly and popular discussions about science and religion. In debate, he was a careful listener who challenged others to think clearly about their assumptions, whether they were Christians, religious, lay people, or his fellow atheists. 

As a philosopher of science with special interest in biology, he wrote extensively on evolution. His 1996 Monad to Man is a provocative work tracing the idea of progress within biology. What Ruse describes as Progress is exemplified by the nineteenth century change in the belief in an unchanging natural world to one where steady improvement was expected. The notion of progress becomes popular in the period leading up to Darwin’s publication of his theory. Ruse argues many biologists warm to the notion of progress as implied purposeful improvement despite the randomness of Darwinian evolution. Ruse’s ideas are controversial because biologists are not supposed see purpose in random selection and also because his criticism is often true. Many biologists tacitly believe in purpose in random process or regularly use purpose language.  

Anybody interested in the science and religion debate will be rewarded by carefully considering Ruse’s writings and contributions to debates. 

This book, one of his last before his death, is one of Ruse’s many on the implications of Darwinism on belief. It is unusual in that the focus of this book is on the influence of Darwinian thought on English language literature during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Ruse is writing about what he knows well, which is English literature and poetry. There are many quotations throughout the book. 

The first chapters look at ideas in literature before the publication of Darwin’s theory. It then discusses Darwinian theory’s reception, before examining the influence of Darwinism on literature in eight thematic chapters. These themes include such topics as: God, origins, humans, race and class, morality, sex, sin and redemption, and the future. The final four chapters look at developments in the mid to late twentieth century as Darwinism became a background to thinking and how differences in interpretation continue. 

Ruse asserts that in literature Darwinian thought developed the marks of having become a secular religion with distinctive belief systems and attitudes. These were expressed in thought and action. 

Broadly, Ruse describes a notion of progress that developed before Charles Darwin during his grandfather’s generation. This notion of improvement became widespread in literature and became a fertile ground for the reception of Darwin’s theory. Then, amidst this fertile ground, with the publication of On the Origin of Species (1859) and Descent of Man (1871), Ruse argues that literature reflected many Darwinian ideas both quickly and widely. For support, he gives many examples in each chapter, intended to relate to the chapter’s theme, and cites a range of scientific, secular, religious, and atheist authors on each topic. 

Ruse outlines a general progression from progress to evolutionary progress. It is unclear at times whether the evolutionary progress in his examples is Lamarckian (by inherited attributes) or Darwinian (by random natural selection). Finally in each chapter, Ruse moves towards literary examples reflecting purposeless development in keeping with random natural selection. This is a strict understanding of Darwinism that seems to be in keeping with Ruse’s atheism. 

The assertion that Darwinism underpins a form of secular religion affecting morality, human behaviour, and understanding of the future is well supported. It is also obvious that Ruse is not happy with people who uncritically accept these “beliefs.” Some of his harshest words are aimed at those he describes as the philosophically naive, such as the new atheists Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. 

Overall, I believe Ruse has identified the important role that Darwinism has played and continues to play in academic and popular thought. Nevertheless, there are some concerns with this book which are not related to his atheistic conclusions. These need to be considered carefully by the reader. My issues relate to the book’s logical and historical rigor. Ruse has always been controversial, and while I may be convinced by his thesis, I am not sure his many critics would be. Some of my concerns are set forth in the following. 

First, it hinders his argument that he does not clearly define “religion.” Additionally, often his literary choices and examples do not clearly relate to the theme of each chapter or even the point he is making. For example, Ruse quotes two of Emily Dickinson’s poems in his chapter on God (pp. 92, 93) in a subsection on God in Nature. The first he admits is not Darwinian and the other does not mention God. Moreover, there are also historiographic issues. In this example, one poem is undated (mid 1860s?) and the other is 1873. It is not clear that On the Origin of Species or Descent of Man could have been read by the poet to have been an influence on the poet. This is one of numerous examples. 

Moreover, it is well known that there were a number of competing models for evolutionary development from the 1870s through to the 1920s (see Peter Bowler, Reconciling Science and Religion, 2001). Lamarckianism competed with Darwinian selection for a long time. As such, it is unclear which of the models actually influence the literary examples that Ruse cites. He does not make the distinction. This is frustrating for the historian. 

Ruse’s choice and range of literature is selective. Most of the poetry and fiction were well known to Ruse. I do not know enough about late nineteenth century literature to have an opinion about whether his selection is broad enough to support his case. However, an odd choice was to exclude science fiction from his discussion. This is one field of fiction where evolutionary thought and Darwinian thought is strongly influential. Ruse does not seem aware of this except for his consideration of Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World and H. G. Well’s The Time Machine. He can be excused for this omission—it would have made the book needlessly many times longer. 

Overall, Ruse’s case is well supported. Darwinism shows all the hallmarks of a secular religion. While this may not be the first of Ruse’s works that someone new to the science and religion debate should read, it is one that should be on their reading list. Although accessible to an interested lay reader, it will be more useful to academic readers.